‘No military victory for any side in Syria’ – UN peace envoy

The conflict between the government and opposition in Syria will either have a peaceful resolution or the country will be destroyed, UN peace envoy to the country Lakhdar Brahimi said in an exclusive interview with RT's Sophie Shevardnadze.

The violent dispute between the forces loyal to Syrian president
Bashar Assad and the opposition has been raging in the country for
nearly two years, with its death toll reaching 60,000, according to
UN statistics.

On Wednesday, a car bomb rocked the center of capital Damascus,
leaving 53 people dead and 253 injured, with neither side claiming
responsibility for the attack.

All attempts to bring the government and opposition to the
negotiation table have so far been in vain, but the United Nations
has just prolonged the mandate of their peace envoy to Syria.

Brahimi’s mission, which was due to expire on Friday, will now
continue to at least the end of 2013.

RT:Do you believe that direct talks between the leader
of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition
Forces, Moaz al-Khatib, and the country’s President Bashar Assad
are possible?

Lakhdar Brahimi: Not with President Bashar Assad, but with
the government. It’s necessary. Yes, sure. I think there are more
and more people who accept that there’s no military victory for any
side and that you need a political solution. And that political
solution needs negotiations. And negotiations, I think, can take
place between the delegation representing the government and the
delegation representing the opposition.

RT:When you’re saying that you may be talking to the
government, but not the president directly, is the problem only in
one man – Bashar Assad himself - or his whole team?

LB: The problem is that the opposition is saying every five
minutes that they don’t want to talk to Bashar Assad. This is the
problem.

RT:Six months ago your predecessor [former UN
Secretary-General] Kofi Annan resigned saying there’s no way there
could be a peaceful resolution in Syria…

LB: No. He didn’t say that. He didn’t say that.

RT:Has anything changed? Do you still believe that a
peaceful resolution is Syria is possible?

LB: First of all, Kofi never said that a peaceful resolution
is never possible. He never said that. What he said was that he was
counting on the international community to help him. And the
international community did not help him. So he said – for the
moment, we are in front of war. He never said that there will never
be a peaceful resolution. So unless you are saying that there must
be a military solution, which a lot of people say. But Kofi Annan
didn’t say that and I’m not saying that.

RT:What’s your take? Is peaceful resolution still a
great possibility?

LB: For the moment it’s extremely difficult. It’s not there.
It’s not happening. But it is a must. Syria either has a peaceful
resolution or then war for… I don’t know, until the country is
destroyed. And if you don’t want the country to be destroyed – and
I don’t think you do – then you really call for a peaceful
resolution, difficult as it may be. The choice really is between
destroying Syria or having a peaceful resolution.

RT:Why do you think the Syrian uprising has such a
strong terrorist element to it?

LB: You see, this is again – what is it that you call
terrorist? Very often a lot of people call terrorist what others
call liberation movement. And I think in Syria we have something
similar. There are definitely acts of horrible violence –
unacceptable violence – that is done by both sides. But to say that
the struggle is between the government and terrorist is a little
bit pushing it too far.RT:Sure. The UN commission believes that
jihadist terror brigades operating in Syria – Jabhat al-Nusra,
Fatah al-Islam and Ahrar al-Sham – are backed from abroad.
LB: A lot of people are backed from abroad that doesn’t
necessary make them terrorists. The Jabhat al-Nusra is considered a
terrorist organization by a lot of people, including a lot of
Syrians. But it doesn’t mean that everybody is a terrorist in
Syria.
RT:What do you make of Saudi Arabia’s admission that they
are actually supplying guns to the opposition?

LB: A lot of people are supplying guns and they’re
recognizing it. Yes, sure. The Russians are supplying guns to the
government. They don’t deny that. We have a war now. Unfortunately,
we have a war. A lot of Syrians – most Syrians, as a matter of fact
– both from the government and the opposition are angry with me
because I call it civil war.

RT:But this is a civil war…

LB: At least, you agree with me on something. You and I call it
civil war. A civil war always attracts support from outside. And
you have two sides in this civil war, and this is what [Russia’s
Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov said: ‘There are two sides to this
– the opposition and the government and they should negotiate.’

Let’s make it very clear that there are organizations that are
objectively considered as terrorists. And there are
organizations that are considered by the government as terrorists,
as a matter of fact, who are not in Syria.

The main struggle is really between a large part of the people
of Syria, who want change. They want change in their country. And
that is I think a legitimate aspiration. They want dignity. That’s
what they said. They want dignity. They want change. They want
democracy. This is the struggle. There are foreigners, they are a
tiny minority, maybe a few hundreds, maybe a couple of thousands.
But there are a hundred thousand at least of armed troopers, who
are fighting against their government, unfortunately. So don’t try
to say it’s foreigners, who are fighting against the Syrian
government. This is not the case.

RT:So you feel like Syrian people could go on living
in a secular country even if President Assad goes?

LB: I hope so.

RT:That’s all I’m asking.

LB: That’s not what you ask. If you are asking then – yes,
definitely. And I think that a lot of people in Syria and outside
of it very much want Syria to continue to be a secular
state.

RT:Why do you think the conflict in Syria has taken
so long? It’s been two years already.

LB: That’s a good question. It’s the best question you
have asked. You have a very strong well-organized regime who are
determined to stay in power. They have the means. They have the
military means to fight and they are doing so. The opposition is –
in spite of all the weapons they receive – are not well organized.
They are mostly civilians, who are taking up arms. And that’s why
they can keep the struggle going, but they can’t win a military
victory. But the government also can’t defeat them. You’ve seen
this one thousand times. That’s why, once again, a political
peaceful solution is what is necessary and good for the Syrian
people.

RT:When I was in Syria three months ago, Assad said
that he’ll actually stay until 2014, wait for the election and see
what happens. Is this a realistic plan?

LB: I would very much like the problem to be solved long
before 2014. If it were possible to do before 2014 it’s much better
than waiting.

RT:Because we’re taking about civil war and he’s
talking about elections. How does those two go
together?

LB: They don’t. You can’t have election while civil war
is going. You need to stop the civil war. And the civil war can be
stopped through the negotiations on the basis of the Geneva
agreement. So if we’ll have that resolution than we’ll have an
election. What kind of an election depends on the results of
negotiations.

RT:Is Assad’s future is in his hands at this point?
Should it be in his hands?

LB: I don’t want to talk about that.

RT:Do you think the only problem is in Assad and [the
fact he’s] not stepping down?

LB: A lot of people who are involved in this conflict in
Syria think that the president is a serious important part of the
problem. This is a fact and they repeat it every day.

RT:Do you believe that’s the problem?

LB: Doesn’t matter what I believe. It doesn’t matter what
you believe either.

RT:You talked directly to the American government –
they believe that Assad is the problem. Do you think it’s an
over-simplistic approach?

LB: Yes, I’m sure you’ll interview the Americans and you
will ask them.

RT:Do you speak with the Syrian government and Assad
directly as you speak to the opposition leaders?

LB: You know, we have an office in Damascus and we keep
in a very close connection and I saw President Assad in the end of
December, sure.

RT:What messages are they sending to each other? How
has their behavior towards each other changed in recent
months?

LB: I don’t think it has changed enough to bring to the
negotiating table. This is what a lot of people, including Mr.
Lavrov, are working on.

RT:The National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary
and Opposition Forces seems to be under influence from many
international players. You have the Arab Gulf states. You have the
US. You have Turkey… No? Tell me if I’m mistaken because that’s the
impression we get.

LB:What is the question?

RT: All I’m asking is that is it hard to negotiate with a
Coalition which is influenced by different international
forces?

LB: Everybody in the world today, people are connected to
one another, they are influenced by one another. I deal with
Russia, I deal with Turkey, I deal with the US because these are
the countries that – I think righty, not wrongly – think that they
have an interest, they have concerns, they have fears about what is
happening in Syria. And I think they all can help the Syrian people
and me get to a solution.

RT:Do you fear that there’s a chance that an Iraqi
scenario could unfold in Syria where sectarian violence spills
over?

LB: Absolutely, this is what needs to be avoided. This is
what you have already some overtones of sectarianism that are
becoming more and more visible in the struggle in Syria. And
that’s why the earlier the problem is solved the better.

RT:Who is to take care of that at this point?

LB: I think both parties. Both parties have to be
extremely careful to avoid and I think they are aware of it. But
they need to be a little bit more careful not to allow the
situation to slip into a purely sectarian conflict.